|
|
Author
|
Topic: Double Features/Drive-In Grosses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/214.gif)
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-23-2003 10:34 AM
I should have clarified that even in the 60's, the second feature from another distributor wasn't a first-run (in most cases). That feature would have already made the rounds through the cycle (first, second, sub-run, drive-in) before being made available for doubling up with the same or other studio's product, usually for a flat rental fee. (Although in smaller towns with one or two singles, both features very well may have been first-run to that market) And in most cases, the second feature wasn't even part of the same genre. Musicals often played with westerns (example - Song of Norway (Cinerama Releasing) with True Grit (PAR). This was seen as a way to bring in a larger audience (i.e. - something for everyone). I think it was AIP that started the trend of similiar genre double features.
Now in the late 70's, it wasn't uncomon for a local drive-in in Bakersfield to actually book two current first-runs day-and-date with a walk-in, creating a double feature, but in this multiplex era, the nature of bookings were in transition.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1466.jpg)
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 01-23-2003 05:00 PM
What happens today includes parts of several of your impressions here.
When I first started working in drive-ins, back in the mid '60s, many pictures were flat rated, if not when new, then certainly by the time they made their way to the drive-in.
Eventually however, main features (at least those worth playing) became percentage-based.
The film companies used to do a courtesy to drive-ins by offering a low-cost (read "flat") older feature to drive-ins as a companion to the main show they booked. We booked that way up through the late '80s. Generally, the studios allowed the flat charge (usually between $50 and $150) to be deducted from the percentage paid on the first show, as long as that picture was from the same studio.
Eventually however, the studios demanded percentages from pretty much any feature that hadn't hit the video market.
The percentages used to be a fairly even split. Today however, the studios are being relatively creative in how they apply their percentages, mostly out of an unusual display of cooperation with drive-in exhibitors. Recognizing that they want a much higher percentage for their main shows, the studios are allowing more flexibility in terms of what percentage is settled upon for the co-feature, generally bringing the two pictures in at acceptable total percentages.
Because pretty much all shows are percentage-based now, you tend to see more situations where one show is from a different distributor than the other. As the percentage for each show is based on the total gross, it doesn't matter as much as it might otherwise. Remember, it isn't a "double feature" if you have to purchase a second ticket for the other show. If you don't have separate admissions to apply to each show, you have to apply what you do make to the whole presentation. This contradicts Paul Linfesty's story a bit, because there is no way to honestly split the gross on a double feature.
Another thing that is a benefit to the distribs as regards drive-ins, and tends to make them a bit more cooperative: Let's say you make a hypothetical double feature of "MIB-2" at it's peak with a picture like "Pluto Nash" at its worst. At the end of the week, your boxoffice report would reflect the same gross for both pictures, even though everyone knows the vast majority of the audience came in because of MIB-2. As one admit pays for both shows, both pictures get to claim the gross, even though the percentage they draw from each is lower than would be the case if you booked them separately in an indoor. Since the dollar figures you see published are reflective of gross income and not percentages paid, this props up a lot of pretty weak titles.
Class is dismissed ![[Smile]](smile.gif) [ 01-23-2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Jack Ondracek ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|